Maximum Leader Chip flagged this defense of the New York Times‘ climate coverage by science editor Laura Chang. He thinks it’s very lame; I tend to think it’s just medium lame.

The NYT’s climate coverage is actually quite good relative to other U.S. media, but, as a reader points out, a little tepid compared to, say, the BBC’s.

The fact is that no media has figured out how to cover the climate crisis well. As the NYT’s Andy Revkin is always quick to point out, it’s "the antithesis of traditional news." But here’s a suggestion, one Chang and Revkin both skip over: How about moving climate coverage off the science pages?

Even conservative estimates of average-global-temperature increase would mean substantial effects on all of society — the economy, security, health, and so on. Project the issue past the science geeks, I say. Get it out into the real, day-to-day world.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.